I was looking for pictures to illustrate my thinking and I got carried on...

Classic games are used by artists as a culture pivot or a theme to make a point (space invaders, tetris, mario NES, ...) and these games are often use as proof of concept to test new expression media... or just to give a retro feeling, but I'm not sure at which point the line is crossed between a game and an art piece... and I still wonder if there is a line to be crossed.

Once there is a goal set and a constraint to challenge, isn't everything a game, including art?

[quote="newt":3chjojh2]I think a good definition of art would be any form of expression beyond function or need...[/quote:3chjojh2]

I like this, but I'm going to take it a step further.

"I think a good definition of art would be any form of expression."

You can't define "art" in absolute terms because everyone has a different perception of what they consider artistic. We try to turn our relativistic view of what-is-art into absolute terms by congregating: by using debate to try to conform others to our standard or seeking out like-minded individuals to form social groups. This self-affirmation gives you confidence and the act of engaging in "what-is-art" promotes social interaction. Who doesn't want that? Heck we might even be power-hungry enough to try to turn everyone on to our definition so it becomes the de facto definition of art!

Anyway, using my definition above, a brick laying on the ground is art because the brick is expressing itself as brick. I don't find the brick necessarily attractive so I'm not going to appreciate it like a finely crafted combustion engine or a room full of millions of origami cranes. Nonetheless, someone else might find it's isolation, it's brickiness, it's redness quite alluring and I most certainly can't deny that it is art - art to them.

[quote="Mulkaccino":3l3ojumx]"I think a good definition of art would be any form of expression."[/quote:3l3ojumx]

Yelling at someone who cuts you off in traffic isn't art, and that is a form of expression.

I personally don't adhere to the idea that anything can be art, or that anything can be art as long as the artist says it's art. That's Dadaism, and in my opinion Marcel Duchamp and his ilk did more harm than good with their movement because it went largely misunderstood by the public and fellow artists alike. The dadaist movement was meant to be a criticism of modern art, which dadaists found to me empty and meaningless. It was anti-art, and it allowed you to do things like pick up any object, sign your name on it, hang it on a wall, and charge $5000. Or to stand on one leg in a park while gargling pudding, and tell everyone it means something deep and significant.

It's exactly that sort of thing that makes the masses see art in general as a big pile of bullshit. It devalues real art. Saying anything can be art is the same sort of "everyone is a winner" mentality that kindergarten teachers have when they hand out a trophy to every kid in the class for the field day sack race even though it was little Billy that actually won. In my opinion it's a meaningless, empty gesture and it makes little Billy's victory less special and significant.

If anything can be art, then art has no meaning or purpose.

So no, I don't think a regular brick lying on the sidewalk can be art. I do think that a brick could possibly inspire some personal reflection in an individual, but so can someone yelling at you in traffic. So can a tree, or the moon, or a rainy day. But those aren't art either, they're nature.

A brick is a tool, and tools are not art. In fact, you could define a tool as the opposite of art... a tool has low aesthetic value but a high degree of practical use. Art (at least fine art) has a high aesthetic value and a low degree of practical use.

Similarly, high aesthetics and high practicality would be craft. Low aesthetics and low practicality would be trash. These are the four basic types of human creations. Art, Craft, Tools, and Trash. Anything you make will fall into one of those categories to one degree or another, but their placement is rather subjective to the person doing the placing.

Anyway I guess my point is that just because something has meaning or can inspire you doesn't mean it's art, and likewise just because you're expressing an idea or an emotion doesn't mean you're making art.

It's generally accepted that fine art has no function other than to express an idea. If it serves some other function (such as to entertain) it then becomes practical, and would hence fall under the category of craft, or design, or applied art, which ever name you want to call it. It ceases to be fine art.

Doesn't a balett entertain in the same way as a movie does? Still it's counted as fine art.

The dadaism worked at that time. Since no one had picked up trash and said it was art before it made people think. People could do the same now, it would still be art, but BAD art since the timing is bad. The other kids, even thought they didn't win, still raced just as much as Billy.

Here's a new definition then. For something to be art, the creator must have the intention of making art. The creator must also have an understanding of what art is. A childs painting isn't art. A moron who saw some dadaist calling a toilet art, and decides to do the same thing, doesn't nescessarily make art.

[quote:kahghaz8]Here's a new definition then. For something to be art, the creator must have the intention of making art. The creator must also have an understanding of what art is. A childs painting isn't art. A moron who saw some dadaist calling a toilet art, and decides to do the same thing, doesn't nescessarily make art.[/quote:kahghaz8]

I see the point, but I would iterate that to a parent, that child's painting could be the most beautiful thing in the world. Then I would say that knowledge of art has less to do with it then the want, or need to create. After all the cavemen knew nothing about dadaism, or abstract, or realism, or even what a collage was.

Also:[quote:kahghaz8]Yelling at someone who cuts you off in traffic isn't art, and that is a form of expression.[/quote:kahghaz8]

I've know several people who have tried to elevate that to an art form.It was stunning to say the least.

Games are work's of art ,Look at the background's , Sprites etc... They don't just pop up magically through coding or event's.Most of the time it has to be drawn on paper before it goes onto the screen aka Concept Art,And for that part you really need to be good with drawings etc...

Art is an expression of one's inner thought's and ideas, And i believe that creating games are an extension of those thought's and ideas.